Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BitTorrent v2

blog.libtorrent.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 576 posts

Re: BitTorrent v2

#171

Post by M2Ys4U »

koeng wrote: post #161

> Identical files will always have the same hash and can more easily be moved from one torrent to another (when creating torrents) without having to re-hash anything. Files that are identical can also more easily be identified across different swarms, since their root hash only depends on the content of the file. As a question for someone who knows better - does this mean that you can download single files within tor…

>As a question for someone who knows better - does this mean that you can download single files within torrents themselves?

Most torrent clients can do this already, but depending on how the torrent was created and the size the files involved you might download a some of the files on either side.

Re: BitTorrent v2

#172

Post by [deleted] »

proverbialbunny wrote: post #25

It feels like this isn't a large enough leap forward. It would be nice if BitTorrent v2 made it harder for ISPs to identify what is bit torrent traffic. AT&T artificially slows down upload speeds.

[deleted]

Re: BitTorrent v2

#173

Post by jug »

PossiblyKyle wrote: post #103

Since we're on this topic, what's your torrent client of choice HN? I plainly use BitTorrent nowadays

Deluge for a server/client model with optional web interface, if you for example want to command your Raspberry Pi to add som torrents. But for a more traditional one I prefer qBittorrent after Ludde abandoned uTorrent.

Re: BitTorrent v2

#174

Post by tekacs »

sleavey wrote: post #71

SHA1 has a collision, so now it uses SHA256. How long until a SHA256 collision? Shouldn't the new protocol just add support for many modern hash functions, and client updates can disable support for hashes that become insecure later? Or does this introduce its own headaches? That's what SSH does, right?

They use multi-hash [0] in magnet links, presumably for exactly this reason.

... but for consistency (like their narrowing of valid bencode), they’ve presumably chosen one main hash for now, so that every client and server doesn’t have to handle all of these cases as people provide a million variants of the same torrent.

[0]: https://github.com/multiformats/multihash

Re: BitTorrent v2

#175

Post by martinald »

DevX101 wrote: post #145
rolleiflex wrote: post #83

I make P2P tools too. [0] Let me tell you this: Bittorrent is one of the few things in the space that actually ... works. It works not in the sense that there is a white paper that should work. Not in the sense that there are a few company-made swarms hosted on industrial servers that keep everyone up and alive, so that the thing gives the impression the 'P2P' network does work. Not in the sense that there is a very-…

BitTorrent was one of the few things that once I understood how it worked, I realized I was looking at the product of true genius.

Really? It's a just an iteration from how eDonkey2000/eMule worked, which actually also had a DHT based 'trackeless' mode, many years before BT came around.

Re: BitTorrent v2

#176

Post by jedberg »

kuroguro wrote: post #113
PossiblyKyle wrote: post #103

Since we're on this topic, what's your torrent client of choice HN? I plainly use BitTorrent nowadays

qbittorrent, hands down :) Open source, cross platform and relatively small footprint (native), uTorrent-like UI. I believe it uses libtorrent under the hood, so this might be integrated soon.

I use it too, the main reason I switched is it seems to be the only one capable of maintaining line speed downloads on 100+ megabit links on a Mac.

Re: BitTorrent v2

#177

Post by sneak »

DevX101 wrote: post #145
rolleiflex wrote: post #83

I make P2P tools too. [0] Let me tell you this: Bittorrent is one of the few things in the space that actually ... works. It works not in the sense that there is a white paper that should work. Not in the sense that there are a few company-made swarms hosted on industrial servers that keep everyone up and alive, so that the thing gives the impression the 'P2P' network does work. Not in the sense that there is a very-…

BitTorrent was one of the few things that once I understood how it worked, I realized I was looking at the product of true genius.

The first time I ever felt that way was with the Gnutella network; I instantly wrote a client for it from scratch.

Bittorrent only became that level of magical for me when the DHT got factored in some time later and magnet links became workable.

The other time was Bitcoin.

I’m a big fan of lack of centralized/coordination/tracker nodes.

Re: BitTorrent v2

#179

Post by loeg »

frenchman99 wrote: post #80
armitron wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collisions in the context of bittorrent are not a big deal. We could (and will, there are millions of torrents around that will never be updated) keep using SHA1 and the world is not going to end.

It isn't? Is it not possible to be tricked into downloading a malicious binary that you then execute on your computer?

I don't think so.

1. The user trusts the source of the .torrent file.

2. A malicious peer makes a preimage attack in some block in an executable file with contents containing some malicious executable payload.

3. The executable wasn't signed, or the targeted block must include executable headers.

4. Some peers get the malicious exe, some don't.

The (2) step is still hard — preimage attacks on SHA1 are still expensive.

And it is probably much easier to bypass SHA1/SHA256 entirely by just uploading a malicious torrent directly and hoping (1) still applies.

Re: BitTorrent v2

#180

Post by Bnshsysjab »

bserge wrote: post #143
wmf wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait until you hear how much CPU time and RAM is being wasted...

It's actually the reverse that bothers me in that case! I have more RAM and CPU time than I can possibly use :D Unless that's what you meant...

Yeah but your hardware requirements are driven by software bloat.
Post reply on HN